Hoovervilles

Hoovervilles were shantytowns of the Great Depression era, named for U.S. president Herbert Hoover, who was seen with increasing disillusionment as his administration refused to acknowledge the suffering of poor families and individuals across the United States. Hoovervilles are distinct from hobo jungles, shantytowns occupied by hobos (White, traveling working men) riding the rails, in that they were more permanent and stable in both structure and residents, often families. Found in both urban and rural areas, Hoovervilles illegally occupied previously vacant land. The largest, located in St. Louis, Missouri, and Seattle, Washington, were estimated to house from 1,000 to 1,200 people; some of the largest existed into the early 1940s. Smaller Hoovervilles, at times consisting of only a few people, were frequently destroyed by local officials and were largely wiped out by the mid-1930s. Hoovervilles were a self-help strategy employed by homeless individuals and families that demonstrated their agency and ability to help themselves, values celebrated by the residents and the broader U.S. populace. Unlike the generations [Page 302]of hobos who lived in shantytowns before the Great Depression, residents of Hoovervilles did not espouse a political agenda of communism or socialism; instead, they closely reflected dominant American values.

Hoovervilles occupy a marginalized existence in U.S. notions of legitimate housing, yet as historian Christina Sheehan Gold points out, these squatter settlements and their residents perpetuated American values in their housing situation, including the values of privacy, freedom, and stability. Residents went so far as to construct makeshift fences around their yards if their tenure was secure enough. Despite the values at work, Hooverville homes did not look like typical American homes of the time, as their major building materials were found, meaning that they were constructed of whatever materials were available at the time. Because of the low quality of building materials, as well as the frequent relocations and destruction of housing by local officials, these homes were always in a state of rebuilding or renewal. Yet, as the most permanent type of squatter settlement, Hoovervilles had relatively durable homes, frequently made of wood or metal, compared to the tents, lean-tos, and stripped-out automobile frames more frequently used in more transient settlements, like hobo jungles.

In terms of settlement rationale and structure, Hoovervilles were neither random nor chaotic. They developed near necessities, including a source of water and building materials, some form of transportation, and, if possible, jobs, schools, and/or hospitals. Reputation of local officials also dictated settlement patterns, as settlements tended to form in areas known for their hospitality and charity toward homeless persons. Internally, these settlements had varied levels of organization, ranging from long-term communities with named streets and mayors to informal clusters of people with few community ties. Even in the more informal settlements, residents were neighborly and frequently shared resources.

Some debate exists around the racial makeup of Hoovervilles. While some historians find Hoovervilles to be some of the more integrated living spaces of the time, others have noted that they were predominantly occupied by U.S. born Whites, as discrimination against foreign-born Whites and Black Americans made a more transient lifestyle difficult. Hobo jungles, more transient and male-dominated squatter settlements, were more amenable to racial mixing, whereas many Hoovervilles mimicked segregated White neighborhoods.

...